4 Points for No Assault Weapon Ban

[TurtleDude]

A gun ban is for purposes of safety. So, it can easily be grouped with gun safety measures.

its dishonest as well being unconstitutional. The only people made safer by gun bans are violent felons

 

[TurtleDude]

There are gun safes, but there are no safe guns.

ITS amazing that I am approaching a million rounds of experience and have never been harmed by any of the guns i have used

 

[daeler]

A gun ban is for purposes of safety. So, it can easily be grouped with gun safety measures.

But the ban doesn't do anything to make people safe. If you are looking at banning a gun for no other reason than it is scary looking then it has nothing to do with safety.

Things that might make a difference: Gun license, harsher punishments for crimes committed with a firearm.

this article helps make my point a bit.

Mass Murder without Guns | National Review

 

[ttwtt78640]

ITS amazing that I am approaching a million rounds of experience and have never been harmed by any of the guns i have used

I have suffered slide bite a time or two, but, other than that, I have never been harmed by my guns either. One close call with hearing damage when I shot a rabbit raiding my garden with a .357 revolver from my bedroom window.

 

[bluesmoke]

The gun banning movement-which is a political weapon of the Democrat party, is the most dishonest entity in the USA political scene-and calling gun bans or laws that merely restrict those who have never harmed anyone with firearms, GUN SAFETY measures, shows how dishonest it is

The purpose of laws that ban certain guns/gun features is for public safety. So that people are safer from these types of guns. Hence, gun safety measures. That you consider people who consider such laws dishonest just shows, like with your misinterpreting the meaning of "confiscating", that you don't understand the definition, the meaning, of safety or public safety. That you fail to be cognizant of that fact is your own neural problem, or your clinging to ignorance like some kind of badge of courage in your own mind.

 

[Hondo]

It's more than gun crime. It's gun violence, which includes suicide. We have a violent culture. The more gun safety measures we put into place, the more that is indicative of and affects public attitude. Public attitude is societal and becomes imbedded in our culture. That helps change our gun culture.

I'm probably going to hasten my death by VSED which is legal. I'd love to just put a bullet in my head to stop suffering, but then it would hurt my fellow gun owners. A sheriff near a military base whose cleaned up more than his fair share of suicides said if you want to prevent thousands of lives being lost every year to gun violence just give people access to lethal Nembutal doses and gun suicide would become rare. But, you are right, and I believe most of that culture is driven by Hollywood.

 

[ataraxia]

I've known 2 murder victims and one attempted murder victim. My best friend from college, Bonnie Delgado Black, was stabbed to death by her husband just before a divorce/custody hearing. She was a trained operative with the DOD Directorate of Counter-Intelligence and Field Activity. Her estranged husband moved 3 blocks from her Alexandria, Virginia home so he could stalk and harass her.

A lifeguard at the YMCA at which I taught lifeguard classes, named Nina Gatto, was murdered when 3 people, two men and a woman, gave her a fatal heroine overdose and covered her mouth and nose so she couldn't breathe. She was working as a police informant at the time.

A girl named Leslie who worked at the salon where I usually got my hair cut had her throat slit with a knife by her ex-boyfriend who was stalking her. The blade cut muscles in her neck and missed the artery.

The police failed to protect 2 people who filed protection orders and 1 who was working for them. None of them were killed with a gun. A 2008 study found 20% of women who filed restraining orders were killed within 2 days of filing the paperwork. 2.54 women are fatal victims of domestic violence every day or 927 victims a year compared to less than 100 people killed with an "assault weapon." Law enforcement dropped the ball in preventing several mass shootings as well. The individuals were reported to authorities or should have failed the background check that cleared them to buy a firearm.

Failure of law enforcement is being directed toward citizens.

I know a guy, in his 40s, whose home was invaded. He fired with a handgun- and missed. The burglar fired back, and caught him in the neck. His wife immediate called 911.

He was taken to emergency surgery to stop the bleeding. The bullet had nicked his carotid artery. They were able to stop the bleeding, but he was in a coma for several weeks. When he started to wake up, he couldn't move the right side of his body. The loss of blood from the carotid hemorrhage had caused a stroke. Now he uses an electric wheelchair to get around, and cannot speak very well.

Studies have shown that homes with guns in them are broken into MORE often, not less (because it seems guns are seen as valuables much like jewelry). When they ARE broken into, the gun-owning homeowners are MORE likely, not less, to get hurt or killed.

That's one of the reasons the NRA successfully lobbied to stop all further research on the subject. You can't have facts being uncovered and shedding light on propaganda and fear-mongering!

 

[Hondo]

I know a guy, in his 40s, whose home was invaded. He fired with a handgun- and missed. The burglar fired back, and caught him in the neck. His wife immediate called 911.

He was taken to emergency surgery to stop the bleeding. The bullet had nicked his carotid artery. They were able to stop the bleeding, but he was in a coma for several weeks. When he started to wake up, he couldn't move the right side of his body. The loss of blood from the carotid hemorrhage had caused a stroke. Now he uses an electric wheelchair to get around, and cannot speak very well.

Studies have shown that homes with guns in them are broken into MORE often, not less (because it seems guns are seen as valuables much like jewelry). When they ARE broken into, the gun-owning homeowners are MORE likely, not less, to get hurt or killed.

That's one of the reasons the NRA successfully lobbied to stop all further research on the subject. You can't have facts being uncovered and shedding light on propaganda and fear-mongering!

That sucks. Who knows what might have happened to the wife if he had not been home or fought back? Sometimes, people lose. Sometimes, the criminals lose. The criminals have the element of surprise and control the escalation of violence. I would suggest burglars don't always know what they'll find and more homes have guns than homes that don't. In cities, there are few gun owners living in apartments. In the country and suburbs, there are many gun owners who own homes. I'd say that statistic is simply based upon random burglaries and not that the burglar had prior intel and planned to rob a home because the criminal knew there would be a gun in the house. They just know where to look for cash, jewelry, and guns once inside a house.

 

[zsu2357]

You misspelled everything

Hmm you are right. It does have everything to do with public safety. The more gun control the less safe the public is. And as TD put it "safer for thugs."

 

[TurtleDude]

The purpose of laws that ban certain guns/gun features is for public safety. So that people are safer from these types of guns. Hence, gun safety measures. That you consider people who consider such laws dishonest just shows, like with your misinterpreting the meaning of "confiscating", that you don't understand the definition, the meaning, of safety or public safety. That you fail to be cognizant of that fact is your own neural problem, or your clinging to ignorance like some kind of badge of courage in your own mind.

that's psychobabble. gun bans only prevent honest people from having said guns. I love people who constantly demonstrate blatant ignorance, and even outright dishonesty about firearms, calling others ignorant

 

[TurtleDude]

I know a guy, in his 40s, whose home was invaded. He fired with a handgun- and missed. The burglar fired back, and caught him in the neck. His wife immediate called 911.

He was taken to emergency surgery to stop the bleeding. The bullet had nicked his carotid artery. They were able to stop the bleeding, but he was in a coma for several weeks. When he started to wake up, he couldn't move the right side of his body. The loss of blood from the carotid hemorrhage had caused a stroke. Now he uses an electric wheelchair to get around, and cannot speak very well.

Studies have shown that homes with guns in them are broken into MORE often, not less (because it seems guns are seen as valuables much like jewelry). When they ARE broken into, the gun-owning homeowners are MORE likely, not less, to get hurt or killed.

That's one of the reasons the NRA successfully lobbied to stop all further research on the subject. You can't have facts being uncovered and shedding light on propaganda and fear-mongering!

nonsense and silly but lets run with your claim that homes with guns in them are more likely to be the subject of burglars. Doesn't that strongly cut against governmental schemes to register legal owned firearms?

 

[aociswundumho]

The purpose of laws that ban certain guns/gun features is for public safety.

Ostensibly, yes, but in reality, no, they're not. You need to watch the video in the first post of this thread. At around the one minute mark she states that banning certain features (like pistol grips) make guns harder for people to handle and less safe overall.

That you consider people who consider such laws dishonest just shows,

Again, you need to watch the video. At about 4:22 she discusses just how often guns are used defensively in the US: "Americans use firearms to defend themselves between 500,000 and 2,000,000 times every year." Banning certain guns that are excellent for self-defense, or banning certain features that make guns easier and safer to shoot, has a net effect of harming law abiding citizens and helping criminals.

So tell me, how does that improve public safety?

 

[zsu2357]

It's more than gun crime. It's gun violence, which includes suicide. We have a violent culture. The more gun safety measures we put into place, the more that is indicative of and affects public attitude. Public attitude is societal and becomes imbedded in our culture. That helps change our gun culture.

Which is conflated into gun violence to get the numbers you need to claim we have such a violent culture.
Look at all the firearms we have in this (violent culture?)country and firearm owners in this (violent culture?)country. Yes I would say things are pretty peaceful. We don't want too change "our culture" because nothing is wrong with "our culture." If you guys are into the UK or Mexico's culture well feel free.

 

[zsu2357]

ITS amazing that I am approaching a million rounds of experience and have never been harmed by any of the guns i have used

Had a gun of mine give me the stink eye once,but it was just a jealousy thing over one I bought.

 

[ataraxia]

nonsense and silly but lets run with your claim that homes with guns in them are more likely to be the subject of burglars.

Yes let’s, because that’s the facts.

Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence.
The Effects of Gun Prevalence on Burglary: Deterrence vs Inducement

Furthermore, when guns ARE present in the home, the chance of injury or death to the homeowners increases sharply.

Most of this research—and there have been several dozen peer-reviewed studies—punctures the idea that guns stop violence. In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

Doesn't that strongly cut against governmental schemes to register legal owned firearms?

No. Does the “government scheme” to register vehicles on the road cut against highway safety?

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes let’s, because that’s the facts.



Furthermore, when guns ARE present in the home, the chance of injury or death to the homeowners increases sharply.






No. Does the “government scheme” to register vehicles on the road cut against highway safety?

outcome based nonsense where they introduce suicides to counter crime prevention. Brookings institute is a well known leftwing propaganda center

Cook is a well known anti gun propagandist and Ludwig is his protege. They start with the goal of proving gun ownership is bad and then work backwards to "prove" the outcome they want

 

[bluesmoke]

its dishonest as well being unconstitutional. The only people made safer by gun bans are violent felons

There have been certain gun bans ruled unconstitutional, but there are also gun bans that remain legal and are being enforced.

How are violent felons made safer by gun bans?

 

[Casper]

There have been certain gun bans ruled unconstitutional, but there are also gun bans that remain legal and are being enforced.

How are violent felons made safer by gun bans?

It means the criminal will have a gun and the soon to be victim will not. Clear?

 

[jimbo]

A gun ban is for purposes of safety. So, it can easily be grouped with gun safety measures.

No it isn't. Gun bans are mostly feel good measures that gain little or nothing.

Currently the ban more guns proposals all have to do with add on parts that have nothing to do with the function of the weapon or its lethal capability.

The only add on that has anything to do with lethal capability is the human attached to the trigger.

 

[bluesmoke]

But the ban doesn't do anything to make people safe. If you are looking at banning a gun for no other reason than it is scary looking then it has nothing to do with safety.

Things that might make a difference: Gun license, harsher punishments for crimes committed with a firearm.

this article helps make my point a bit.

Mass Murder without Guns | National Review

To do with making people safe, there are more suicides and murders by guns kept in homes for self defense, to keep people safe at home, than ever used for self defense.

 

[jimbo]

But the ban doesn't do anything to make people safe. If you are looking at banning a gun for no other reason than it is scary looking then it has nothing to do with safety.

Things that might make a difference: Gun license, harsher punishments for crimes committed with a firearm.

this article helps make my point a bit.

Mass Murder without Guns | National Review

There is no evidence that either of those cause less crimes to be committed.

 

[jimbo]

I know a guy, in his 40s, whose home was invaded. He fired with a handgun- and missed. The burglar fired back, and caught him in the neck. His wife immediate called 911.

He was taken to emergency surgery to stop the bleeding. The bullet had nicked his carotid artery. They were able to stop the bleeding, but he was in a coma for several weeks. When he started to wake up, he couldn't move the right side of his body. The loss of blood from the carotid hemorrhage had caused a stroke. Now he uses an electric wheelchair to get around, and cannot speak very well.

Studies have shown that homes with guns in them are broken into MORE often, not less (because it seems guns are seen as valuables much like jewelry). When they ARE broken into, the gun-owning homeowners are MORE likely, not less, to get hurt or killed.

That's one of the reasons the NRA successfully lobbied to stop all further research on the subject. You can't have facts being uncovered and shedding light on propaganda and fear-mongering!

I for one would like to see links to those studies.

 

[daeler]

There is no evidence that either of those cause less crimes to be committed.

Do you think a ban on AR-15s would prevent crimes?

I like the Gun license idea because it would be your BGC and would make gun registration unnecessary, in my thought, and if you imposed harsher penalties for crimes that include a firearm it may cause some people to rethink. To many people get out after 1 year after committing a violent crime when they should have been kept longer as they just continue the behavior when they are released.

 

[daeler]

To do with making people safe, there are more suicides and murders by guns kept in homes for self defense, to keep people safe at home, than ever used for self defense.

Everything I have seen suggests that statement is false. There are very few studies on defensive use of guns, but the ones I have seen suggest anywhere from 100k to 2million uses per year.

On top of that taking the gun away from suicidal people doesn't stop the suicide. Guns are easy but that doesn't mean there isn't another way.

 

[jimbo]

Do you think a ban on AR-15s would prevent crimes?

I like the Gun license idea because it would be your BGC and would make gun registration unnecessary, in my thought, and if you imposed harsher penalties for crimes that include a firearm it may cause some people to rethink. To many people get out after 1 year after committing a violent crime when they should have been kept longer as they just continue the behavior when they are released.

(1) No.

(2) Why would a gun license, which in and of itself is a registration, make gun registration unnecessary?

Committing a firearms related crime is an indication of a willingness to murder. The ultimate penalty is death or life imprisonment. Do you believe that changing the effective penalty from 1 year to two will have any effect on crime? I don't.